Landi v. Arkules Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: An heir finder agreement was declared unenforceable as contrary to Arizona public policy due to improper attorney solicitation, an excessive fee, and unlicensed investigative services. Quantum meruit recovery was denied.
Legal Significance: Contracts violating fundamental public policy, such as those involving unlicensed regulated services or improper attorney solicitation, are void and unenforceable, precluding even equitable remedies like quantum meruit.
Landi v. Arkules Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Defendant David Arkules, working for Moorehead & Associates (an Illinois heir locating business), discovered the estate of Roi Landi Yelverton in Arizona. Arkules located Dale Michael Landi, Yelverton’s son, in New York and executed an agreement. Landi appointed Moorehead to secure his inheritance, assigning Moorehead 40% of any recovery. Moorehead was to retain an attorney and pay all expenses. Bernard Arkules, an Arizona attorney and father/brother to the other defendants, subsequently contacted Landi, provided genealogical materials, and offered advice on probating the estate. Landi later hired his own attorney and sued to rescind the agreement, arguing it was unenforceable. At the time of the agreement and services, neither David Arkules nor Moorehead held Arizona private investigator licenses. The agreement specified Illinois law would govern disputes. The trial court granted summary judgment for Landi, finding the agreement violated Arizona law due to the excessive fee (A.R.S. § 12-890), lack of private investigator licenses, and improper attorney solicitation, rendering it void as against public policy.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Is an heir finder agreement providing for a 40% contingent fee and requiring the heir finder to retain an attorney unenforceable under Arizona law as contrary to public policy when the heir finder is unlicensed in Arizona and the arrangement involves improper attorney solicitation?
Yes, the heir finder agreement is unenforceable. The court affirmed the trial Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Is an heir finder agreement providing for a 40% contingent fee and requiring the heir finder to retain an attorney unenforceable under Arizona law as contrary to public policy when the heir finder is unlicensed in Arizona and the arrangement involves improper attorney solicitation?
Conclusion
This case underscores that contracts whose formation or performance violates strong public Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure d
Legal Rule
Under Arizona law, guided by the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi
Legal Analysis
The court first determined that Arizona law, not Illinois or New York Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in volu
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- An “heir finder” contract with a 40% contingency fee is void